enrich_frontmatter

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses that the operation is enqueued and returns a job id, but does not mention that it will modify note files or what happens on failure. Since no annotations are provided, more detail about side effects would improve transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler, and the key async semantics are front-loaded. The pointer to the status tool is a concise and useful addition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Provides enough context for a simple async job: it returns a job id and points to the status tool. It lacks details about output schema or required inputs, but for a background enqueue operation the description is largely sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Each parameter has a short description ('optional single note', 'folder selection limit'), but the interplay between path, paths, and folder is unclear, and all parameters are optional with no explanation of default behavior when none are provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states the action ('Enqueue'), the resource ('required-frontmatter enrichment'), and the async/background nature. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling status tool by directing users to enrich_frontmatter_status for inspection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly describes the async workflow: enqueue, get a job id immediately, then check status. It could be stronger by noting when to prefer this over direct frontmatter edits, but the intended usage is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.